From Donald Trump's riff on Baltimore, to the 2019 Democratic debates in Detroit, to plant-rich diets, readers sound off on recent headlines.

I lived in Baltimore for 53 years. Trump’s comments are just political venom.

Letters to the editor:

James S. Robbins, in his column “The president is right about Baltimore. Are Democrats really prepared to defend failure?,” addresses President Donald Trump’s rants attacking the city.

Having lived in the West Baltimore area for 53 years and having taught in a West Baltimore school, I witnessed the bad situation there my entire life. Money doesn’t fix it. Social change doesn’t work either. Trump’s comments are political and unpresidential. The problems in Baltimore can be found, to some degree, in any large city, including a few blocks from where Trump lives. There’s no point in singling out one city. It’s just political venom.

As for responsibility for improving Baltimore, all levels of government bear some responsibility, either directly or indirectly. Trump’s shorter time in office is a mitigating factor, but it doesn’t detract from his responsibility to all Americans.

David Williams; Toronto

Trump was correct. How disingenuous of Democrats to defend Baltimore’s Rep. Elijah Cummings or anyone who has had a role in governing this city.

— Bob Cottam

In a desperate attempt to confront Biden, candidates attacked Obama

Letters to the editor:

Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Detroit was a coordinated attack on front-runner Joe Biden. Barack Obama’s legacy was collateral damage, as candidates trashed it to get to Biden.

The wisdom and sensibility of piling on Biden, by demeaning the policies of America’s first black president and one of the country’s most popular Democrats, is bewildering. President Obama is an icon and an inspiration to millions. He is popular among arguably the most vital cohort, black voters.

Because of his lead, candidates needed to confront Biden; they failed to do so prudently and effectively. The outcome: Biden still stands while other candidates remain desperate to seize the moment. The first Democratic caucuses and primaries are seven months away. As the cliché goes, in politics that is an eternity where anything can happen.

Ken Derow; Swarthmore, Penn.

Tuesday’s debate convinced me that these are, at best, pseudopolicy debates. Having taught argument for 45 years, I believe that the format doesn’t permit a rigorous interaction of ideas. It makes little sense for candidates to get lost in the weeds over who has the best policy or who is a moderate and who is a progressive.

Presidents don’t always enter office with the best policies. Therefore, the question that should have been asked was: Which candidate has the best chance of working with a congress that may be controlled by a different political party to get their proposals adopted.

Most of these candidates have good and potentially effective policies, but none of them will automatically have their policies adopted. Voters want to know who will actually get the job done; I’m not sure we yet have an answer.

America’s majority has spoken: Enact gun restrictions

When combined, guns, mental instability and hatred create a lethal mixture: mass shootings. In a country that’s awash in gun violence, it’s time we take a hard look at this weapon of mass destruction. A 2019 Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 69% of Americans would prefer to see restrictions on guns, and that 55% of American favor legislation to make gun ownership more challenging.

How long will the majority continue to allow a minority, who are anti-gun control, to block meaningful change? If these gun activists continue to prevail and refuse to budge on restrictions, the majority might have to resort to boycotting businesses, cities and states that cater to them. Let’s hope it never comes to this.

One thing is for certain, if you don’t own a gun, you will never be in a position to use it.

It’s a bit ironic that Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, the state that produces “entertainment” that perpetuates violence via television and movies, doesn’t question Hollywood’s role in these continuing events.

— Mike Stevens

Gun laws aren’t the answer, but California can address things like issues with mental health.

— Larry Gilbert

Both parties’ heated immigration rhetoric

Letter to the editor:

While it’s unlikely that most Democratic leaders actually believe in open borders, some of the party members are radical on immigration, making it politically risky for Democrats to support any immigration restrictions.

On the Republican side, The Trump administration’s emphasis is apprehending immigrants at the border, doing raids to against illegal immigrants and unsuccessfully attempting to build a border wall. The result is a policy that is the worst of both worlds, both cruel and ineffective. Before the midterms, Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress, yet Trump made little effort to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed.

I suspect that Trump’s immigration strategy is intended more for public manipulation than for actually controlling immigration. I fear that the future for immigration policy from both Democrats and Republicans is heated rhetoric, cruel and ineffective policies and continuing gridlock.

Health is far broader than age. A significant number of factors must be considered. Baker acknowledges that some younger presidents have had health issues, but I disagree with his drawing a broad conclusion — that only those of a certain age can run for president. I served as a senior official at the federal, state and local level. I worked with many “older” officeholders and public servants who served ably and with distinction.

Herb K. Schultz; Palm Springs, Calif.

Embrace plant-rich diets

Letter to the editor:

In Bjorn Lomborg’s column, “Don’t let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side,” he claimed vegetarianism is an inefficient climate solution: He butchered the truth. Plant-rich diets are indispensable to avert a climate catastrophe.

Animals inefficiently convert energy. The World Resources Institute reported that beef requires 20 times more land and emits 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein compared with protein from plants. For the same reason that animal products are energy-intensive, they also tend to be costlier. We can’t meet climate targets without changing meat consumption.